Regulation
Regulation
Posted on Oct 1, 2025
What is the statute of limitations for flagging someone?
4.19K
38
10
20
20
0
Is there a certain timeline to flag someone for something before a person can no longer be flagged for that thing?
Posted in these groups: 
Regulation
Regulation
Posted 2 mo ago
Responses: 3
There is no such thing as a "statute of limitations" on a flag. Commanders should (or will in some circumstances) implement the flag as soon as the situation requiring it are known though.
Flags are not for previous situations that are no longer in existence (i.e., Soldier was overweight, but a flag was never applied when he was and he's since met standards), however, if there are ongoing actions regarding that previous situation, those may result in a suspension of favorable actions.
For example, the Soldier received a DUI while off-post, but for whatever reason that DUI did not become known to the military until six months later. A flag will be placed on the Soldier pending the decision to pursue administrative, non-judicial or UCMJ action.
Until that matter in question is resolved to the satisfaction of the military, then the subsequent circumstances could result in a flag as well, even if the initial situation wouldn't be flaggable anymore. For example, a Commander's investigation about some past actions and the circumstances surrounding them. The flag wouldn't be for the original situation, it would be put in place while the investigation is ongoing.
Flags are not for previous situations that are no longer in existence (i.e., Soldier was overweight, but a flag was never applied when he was and he's since met standards), however, if there are ongoing actions regarding that previous situation, those may result in a suspension of favorable actions.
For example, the Soldier received a DUI while off-post, but for whatever reason that DUI did not become known to the military until six months later. A flag will be placed on the Soldier pending the decision to pursue administrative, non-judicial or UCMJ action.
Until that matter in question is resolved to the satisfaction of the military, then the subsequent circumstances could result in a flag as well, even if the initial situation wouldn't be flaggable anymore. For example, a Commander's investigation about some past actions and the circumstances surrounding them. The flag wouldn't be for the original situation, it would be put in place while the investigation is ongoing.
(8)
(0)
Your question seems a tad vague....and without context, I will go with what the Regulations state:
AR 600-8-2, Suspension of Favorable Actions.
Section 2-1d states Flags will be initiated within 3 days. (paraphrased and condensed).
HOWEVER
2-4 states "The effective date of a Flag, unless otherwise specified in this regulation, will be the date that the circumstance(s) requiring the Flag occurred, not the date the Flag was initiated (for example, if the circumstance occurred on the 25th of March, but the Flag was not initiated until the 3d of April, the effective date of the Flag would still be the 25th of March). The Flag is considered to have been in effect and any favorable action previously approved between these dates would be considered void."
Based on those two sections, I would venture an educated assessment that there is no statute of limitations.
AR 600-8-2, Suspension of Favorable Actions.
Section 2-1d states Flags will be initiated within 3 days. (paraphrased and condensed).
HOWEVER
2-4 states "The effective date of a Flag, unless otherwise specified in this regulation, will be the date that the circumstance(s) requiring the Flag occurred, not the date the Flag was initiated (for example, if the circumstance occurred on the 25th of March, but the Flag was not initiated until the 3d of April, the effective date of the Flag would still be the 25th of March). The Flag is considered to have been in effect and any favorable action previously approved between these dates would be considered void."
Based on those two sections, I would venture an educated assessment that there is no statute of limitations.
(4)
(0)
COL Randall C.
SGT Spencer Marek - You bring up a very good point. You mentioned the AFT scores, but I wasn't connecting it to the exemption to the ABCP given by AD 2025-17*.
BLUF - You are correct. While he was out of compliance between the time he failed the ABCP and the time he took the AFT, the bottom line is that the Soldier is in compliance now. If a flag wasn't implemented at the time he wasn't in compliance with the ABCP, then it is not to be put in place now.
From the AD, "Soldiers enrolled in the ABCP who achieve the requirements in paragraph 5a of this directive will be released from the ABCP in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 600–9, paragraph 3–13, and their flag will be lifted pursuant to reference 1f."
Even though it might be a gray area, implementing a flag at this point is at best a complete waste of time and can only be viewed as a punitive action, which is specifically contrary to the regulatory guidance.
Since the directive is new (it's less than a month old at the time of this posting), are you sure the unit leadership is aware of it? If they are aware of it and are going through with a flagging action, then that's something to discuss with the unit commander, and if not rectified, something that should be brought to the attention of the IG (since this would be a case of regulatory guidance not being followed).
Is there something else behind the scenes? Hypothetically, if the Soldier was retroactively flagged with an effective date of the ABCP non-compliance and subsequently had the flag removed with an effective date of the AFT passing, is there something that would be affected by the flag (such as a pending promotion, given an award, etc.)?
-------------------------------
* Army Directive 2025-17 (Army Body Fat Standard for Army Fitness Test Score) - https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN44956-ARMY_DIR_2025-17-000-WEB-1.pdf
BLUF - You are correct. While he was out of compliance between the time he failed the ABCP and the time he took the AFT, the bottom line is that the Soldier is in compliance now. If a flag wasn't implemented at the time he wasn't in compliance with the ABCP, then it is not to be put in place now.
From the AD, "Soldiers enrolled in the ABCP who achieve the requirements in paragraph 5a of this directive will be released from the ABCP in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 600–9, paragraph 3–13, and their flag will be lifted pursuant to reference 1f."
Even though it might be a gray area, implementing a flag at this point is at best a complete waste of time and can only be viewed as a punitive action, which is specifically contrary to the regulatory guidance.
Since the directive is new (it's less than a month old at the time of this posting), are you sure the unit leadership is aware of it? If they are aware of it and are going through with a flagging action, then that's something to discuss with the unit commander, and if not rectified, something that should be brought to the attention of the IG (since this would be a case of regulatory guidance not being followed).
Is there something else behind the scenes? Hypothetically, if the Soldier was retroactively flagged with an effective date of the ABCP non-compliance and subsequently had the flag removed with an effective date of the AFT passing, is there something that would be affected by the flag (such as a pending promotion, given an award, etc.)?
-------------------------------
* Army Directive 2025-17 (Army Body Fat Standard for Army Fitness Test Score) - https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN44956-ARMY_DIR_2025-17-000-WEB-1.pdf
(0)
(0)
SGT Spencer Marek
COL Randall C. Sir, this new directive has been brought up but each time it was asked by 1SG when it was published and essentially made out as if it no longer counted. If soldier is flagged, per MILPER 20-400, the soldiers assignment instructions will be deleted. This soldier was set to start PCS leave with a report date of January 20th to new duty station and up to 60 days early reporting. This case has been brought to IG and soldier is working with IG as things come about, per IG, it was stated and relayed to 1SG that per AD 2025-17 soldier is exempt from height and weight failure flag and enrollment into ABCP
(0)
(0)
COL Randall C.
SGT Spencer Marek - I'm not sure how it "no longer counted". The Directive was just released in September 2025!
The MILPER message message you mentioned is about TACITS and expired on 31 December 2021, so I'm not sure how that would be relevant. Was there a different MILPER you were referring to?
Bottom line: The 1SG is wrong in this case. Have you spoken to the Commander? If so, is he on-board with the 1SG's actions? It's pretty clear in the AD and regulation what should be happening and this sounds like the 1SG is either misinterpreting the regulatory/policy directives or being stubborn in his view despite the written and verbal instructions to the contrary.
The MILPER message message you mentioned is about TACITS and expired on 31 December 2021, so I'm not sure how that would be relevant. Was there a different MILPER you were referring to?
Bottom line: The 1SG is wrong in this case. Have you spoken to the Commander? If so, is he on-board with the 1SG's actions? It's pretty clear in the AD and regulation what should be happening and this sounds like the 1SG is either misinterpreting the regulatory/policy directives or being stubborn in his view despite the written and verbal instructions to the contrary.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Funny, my mind is somewhere else.
I was thinking there's a statute of limitation for FLAGGING someone with a rifle at the range?
I was thinking there's a statute of limitation for FLAGGING someone with a rifle at the range?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google